Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

June 9, 2014 - 11:18 am

Scraped from Mashable.

In an interview airing on Monday night, President Obama reveals his frustration with lawmakers who question the very existence of manmade global warming. The interview, conducted for the Showtime documentary series “Years of Living Dangerously,” features a revealing exchange between New York Times columnist Tom Friedman and Obama, in which the president admits to having the desire to “unload on” lawmakers, such as House Republicans, who question the existence of manmade global warming as well as its severity.

Excerpts of the interview were published in the New York Times on Sunday, and a video clip was posted to Youtube.

“Look, it’s frustrating when the science is in front of us,” Obama said. “…We can argue about how. But let’s not argue about what’s going on. The science is compelling.

The baseline fact of climate change is not something we can afford to deny. And if you profess leadership in this country at this moment in our history, then you’ve got to recognize this is going to be one of the most significant long-term challenges, if not the most significant long-term challenge, that this country faces and that the planet faces.

Actually, the “how” is a big part of the argument, but Obama (who is not a scientist) just leaps over it. The climate is changing, because that’s what climate always does. It changes. The steady-state universe went out of science fashion decades ago, and scientists are just now really getting a good handle on how variations in the Sun’s energy output impact climate here on earth. But “the Sun has a massive impact on Earth’s climate” is the safe way to bet. It’s just a lot bigger and more consequential than we are.

That’s not the only “how” that’s worth arguing about. Even if you accept that mankind is changing the climate, “how” do we change that — or should we? We are a part of nature, if you believe the godless leftists who are pushing their climate change narrative. If we’re a part of nature, then anything we do is natural, including making Earth warmer (or cooler, as scientists — a community that does not and never did include Barack H. Obama Jr. — thought just a few decades ago) is just part of nature. It would be unnatural to oppose that. So there’s one philosophical argument, and then there’s a practical argument — how do we go about changing the climate back? First, you have to suppose that changing it back (rolling back the clock, liberals would argue in other political contexts) is even possible. Then you have to decide that it’s desirable. Then you have to decide what measures will change it back, and whether those measures are worth it. And whether they’ll even work, as we have no history of intentionally changing the entire planet’s climate. That’s kind of a big job. This administration can’t even take care of sick veterans. Yet Obama believes he’s smart enough to heal the planet? Yes, actually, that’s exactly what he thinks — the arrogant boob. He ought to demonstrate competence in a smaller job first. Like, just to pull something out of the air, building a functional health insurance website…

What I’m saying is, Barack Obama is offering a simplistic, bordering on childish, presentation of all the arguments involved in what we think of as “climate change.” But, as he knows well, childish argumentation is often very effective at generating emotional responses.

It hasn’t proven to be very effective so far, though, in changing votes. Americans tend to rate “climate change” very low in our issue priorities. A majority of Americans are at least somewhat skeptical of “climate change”/”global warming” as an issue that’s worth their time. A 59% majority worries more about jobs than “climate change.” Even as an environmental issue, climate ranks behind air and water pollution in Americans’ concerns. It’s just not an issue that moves a lot of voters, nor is it an issue that causes its strongest advocates to change their lifestyles. Barack Obama still joins the likes of Al Gore in jetting around the world, spewing all kinds of noxious gases (in more ways than one) to lecture everyone else about our carbon footprints. Until these enviro radicals practice what they preach, they earn nothing more than the right to be ignored.

 

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Well, when you consider that the progs invoke "science" in what is really a pseudo-religions manner; then branding skeptics as heretics makes perfect sense.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not really on topic but I'm really starting to hate how "skeptic" is now a dirty word in politicized science. Skepticism is one of the pillars of science - not just believing the first thing you hear. Now it is a stand-in for "heretic".
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (8)
All Comments   (8)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Obama isn't talking to us - he's talking past us to his friends and fellow-travellers.

Climate change may not move a lot of voters - but it sure moves a lot of bureaucrats to develop reams of regulations and it sure moves a lot of money out of taxpayers' pockets and into lord knows what.

27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
How many science classes did Obama take in college? Did he take calculus and advance statistics? Does he understand the concept of regression towards the mean? How about the differences between primary versus secondary data and direct observation versus inference?
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
How many science classes did Obama take in college?

Please, how do you expect anyone to answer that question? His school records are a secret on a par with the plans for making H-bombs or Coca Cola.

But if I had to guess, I'd guess that he majored in Grievance Studies and minored in Choom. If he learned anything about science, it was only the part that tells you how to get a bigger kick out of drugs.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'd personally guess it was a double major, with equal attention to each part...
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
"You can't reason a man out of something he didn't reason himself into in the first place."

27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Clown science by biased scientists. Don't pay attention to any opinion given by anyone who gets paid based upon a finding of man made global warming. Honest scientists should welcome challenges to their theories (and global warming is clearly no more than a theory), because that's what gives such theories strength and staying power. Scientific theories are always challenged and evolve as the result of new information and experimentation. Honest scientists also don't fudge facts (literally altering the data) to support their theories. Any scientific trial engaged in such tactics would be immediately and widely discredited. But with global warming altering the data seems to be okay. The global warming crowd also claims there is widespread consensus on this issue. That claim is false as well (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18300-climategate-3-0-university-threatens-blogger-for-exposing-97-consensus-fraud), but even if there was such consensus, that is a far cry from stating a scientific fact. Consensus is not science. The global warming crowd cites no hard evidence of global warming. The repeated references to climate events attributed to global warming would, in any other environment, be referred to as weather events. We have scientists claiming they can predict climate details over decades and centuries, but they can't tell you what the weather will be like next week. The entire exercise is based on computer models which are regularly proven to be faulty. Climate is just too big and too complicated with too many variables to be subject to any reasonably accurate climate modeling. An honest scientist will admit this, but when he does, he will be badgered and belittled for not drinking the global warming Kool-Aid, and will essentially be blacklisted. So much for science.

The biggest lie is that we could do anything about it even if it were all true which is very far from a certainty. We can spend billions and trillions and none of it will have anything more than an extremely negligible effect on global warming. This is nothing more than an excuse to create huge government programs to be run by the power elite to sustain their power and prestige.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not really on topic but I'm really starting to hate how "skeptic" is now a dirty word in politicized science. Skepticism is one of the pillars of science - not just believing the first thing you hear. Now it is a stand-in for "heretic".
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, when you consider that the progs invoke "science" in what is really a pseudo-religions manner; then branding skeptics as heretics makes perfect sense.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All